Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Wikitext_syntax_change_for_chemicals--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the upcoming "420 collaboration", which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017! The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion. WikiProject Pharmacology participants may be particularly interested in the following category: Category:Cannabinoids. For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The above navboxes are being proposed for deletion. Your comments are welcome here. Boghog (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

We likely need a rule about this. Maybe limit it to three? If one takes a common generic med which lets say has 100 brand names, one can easily get 100s of other medications that sound or are spelled similar to one of those names. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

That does sound like something worth considering! Are there any articles that have an awful lot of brands listed in the lead like that? Biochemistry&Love (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

We have a few accounts that try to add lots. Would be good to have something to point to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I do recall this coming up once on the

albuterol (ProAir, Proventil, Ventolin, and the tablet, VoSpire ER), estradiol/norethindrone (Activella, CombiPatch TD, Lopreeza, and Mimvey), and perhaps other COCs. Even then, a link to other brand names would probably suffice (which is what the abuterol

article does).

TL;DR: I support a "rule of 3." Perhaps also include a note about only adding brands of relevance to en.wikipedia as well. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I created this little top icon, so I thought I would come here to share and discuss the draft! I used the Template:WikiProject Medicine topicon article as a guide. You can find the draft here:

• Draft:Template:WikiProject Pharmacology topicon

Let me know what you think about it! I thought it would be something fun to include on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology page. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I like it. Edges could use a little cleaning up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

On your advice, I have attempted to sharpen the edges via Photoshop. I don't think I did a very good job though, haha; it's hard to see any difference. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Orlistat#Drug_description Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking for opinions on: Talk:Psychiatric pharmacy#Name change. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 13/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Pharmacology, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! (: ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 21:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

{{

Please comment on the talk page of Medical cannabis in the United States. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The following is in the Isoprenaline article:

The

Was briefly discussed here back in 2011, in this thread. Has not been raised at WT:MED, WT:MEDRS, or RSN.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

(What do you know, I was in that past discussion.) I'd say that it is certainly a less-than-ideal source because it is not peer-reviewed. In this case, it's medicinal chemistry content about SAR, so I don't see it as a MEDRS issue (no reader will be misled about health concerns based on that sentence). So I would say that it is not so bad that the sentence needs to be removed, but it's very appropriate to replace it with a better source, or to tag it as "better source needed". I started a PubMed search myself, but lost interest, but I'm reasonably sure there must be an RS out there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Many drug articles are titled according to a pattern such as WAY-nnnnnn or A-nnnnn or SB-nnnnnn - i.e. a 1-to-3-character alphabetic prefix, followed by a 1-to-6-digit number. In a significant minority of them, the number part is broken up with a comma - e.g.

I usually don't see commas in the literature as well, or from the manufacturers. The commas should be removed. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 22:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the commas should be removed. For example, at

A-412,997 every reference that mentions the code name uses "A-412997", not "A-412,997". It can get confusing as you dig deeper, if I recall correctly with some companies using a hyphen, some using a space, and some using nothing between the letters and the numbers. Best to stick with what published sources use, with priority given to the method used by authors employed by the company that discovered/developed it. ChemNerd (talk

) 12:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I noticed an anonymous editor has been removing pharmaceutical drugs from being categorized as inventions. See the edits of 203.205.34.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) such as this example. Since drugs are universally patented with individuals listed as inventors, these category removals seem inappropriate to me. I started by reverting a few, but since there are so many, I decided to seek input here before continuing. Any thoughts? ChemNerd (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Since haloperidol didn't exist before someone first synthesised it, and since new chemical compounds can be patented, I don't know how they could be seen as anything else but inventions. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The category is appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I suppose they could be characterized as discoveries rather than inventions. Wikidata avoids this issue by having a single field "Inventor or discoverer" field. Sizeofint (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This is splitting hairs, but I guess that endogenous substances that are used as drugs are discovered, and compounds that are synthesized and which do not occur endogenously are invented. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I certainly agree that "invention" is appropriate, for lack of a better (?) or narrower category, e.g., "Drugs developed in <COUNTRY>". I am quite concerned that this anon is depopulating Category:Belgian inventions across a broad swath of articles, not only drug ones. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Category:Belgian inventions is a reasonable category for these drugs. The unknown editor gives in the edit summary the explanation "It's not an invention, but a development". However, when filing a patent, one requires a "statement of invention". Even if the molecule isn't designed, the use or application is still an invention. So, patent law suggests that drugs (which are patentable) are indeed invented. Given the consensus above, I'll start reverting the non-hormone drug category edits performed by 203.205.34.102 over the last few days. Klbrain (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I find the binding activity sections of articles about drugs a nightmare generallly and we allow primary sources to be used in generating them.

We have an interesting question that goes to the heart of how this drug is classified on the talk page of Mirtazapine‎ that someone who likes dealing with this, could perhaps deal with?

Talk:Mirtazapine#Does_Mirtazapine_really_posses_serotonergic_action.3F Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Generally speaking, binding data should come from

IUPHAR (best source IMO), bindingDB, Human Metabolome Database (HMDB), DrugBank, and/or similar databases because they aggregate binding data. Medical reviews are also reasonable sources to use for this, but based upon the compound articles I've worked on, they're typically not as comprehensive as these databases. A primary source is probably adequate for stating that a compound is a receptor ligand with a particular mechanism of action (e.g., agonist, neutral antagonist, inverse agonist, etc.) though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢

) 22:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I commented there and covered the entries for mirtazapine in the 4 databases I mentioned above. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Isavuconazonium (a marketed antifungal) is a prodrug of isavuconazole (the active moiety -- not marketed). I moved " isavuconazole" to Isavuconazonium and did what you see there, adding an additional drugbox for the prodrug. Does this make sense to folks? Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the INN is

isavuconazonium sulfate, in analogy to other compounds with an N⁺, such as tiotropium bromide. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk

) 06:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The INN is the chloride salt, actually. Rec INN List 58. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Isavuconazole is also an INN in its own right, BTW. To me, it does make sense to have the article at the prodrug. I don't think we should have separate articles for prodrug and active ingredient unless both are marketed (e.g., fosaprepitant and aprepitant). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Pls see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Detailed_presentation_of_clinical_effects_of_a_drug Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

We are submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed journal, about the use of metabolomics in opioid addiction research, and when I was researching opium components, I found a terrific table here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Components_of_opium. Unfortunately, the table has no source or references but the Wikipedia Information Team provided me with a link to your talk page.

This is my statement, based on the Template: "Opium contains many chemical constituents, which can be grouped by meconic acid, α-naphthaphenanthridines, tetrahydroprotoberberines, isoquinolones, phtalide isoquinolines, aporphines, protopines, alkaloids, and phenanthrenes."

I need a reference that will make it past peer review when we submit to the journal for publication. Unfortunately, a reference to an unsourced Wikipedia table won't be accepted.

Can you help me? Do any of you have a source that would work for the statement I am making? If you don't, I will have to take it out of the paper, but I thought I would check with you, just in case.

Thank you so much for any help you can provide.

WildIrish (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:WildIrish these navigation templates are created by Wikipedians. You can see the others here[1].

Unlikely to be a single reference. While we reference most stuff here we do not ref these templates. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

There should be references for each of the drugs listed under Category:Natural opium alkaloids. For a peer-reviewed review article on the composition of opium see the first section of Kalant (1999).^[1]